Lessons for IT Project Manager Efficacy

PAPERS

about project-related success are potentially a moving target, or at the very
least influenced by when, who, and
what is being measured (Baker, Murphy,
& Fisher, 1988; de Wit, 1988; Wateridge,
1995; Baccarini, 1999; Lipovetsky, Tishler,
Dvir, & Shenhar, 2002; Jugdev & Müller,
2005; Müller & Turner, 2007; Ika, 2009).
Our long list of references highlights
that this phenomenon is confounded
by the fact that reference to “project
success” is often a comprehensive term
that includes factors related to project outcomes, the project management
methodology, and the project manager’s
(person’s) proficiency in using project
management techniques, and efficacy
in managing across this entire range
of issues. In addition, many of the articles cited above attempt to address factors that impact success as well as the
outcomes. This is particularly relevant
in the IT realm where there may be
considerable differences between success of the project and success of the
system (see Markus, Axline, Petrie, &
Cornelis, 2000). As such, one of our
key findings highlighted in the literature is the repeated adage that the only
agreement on definitions of success as
related to projects and project management is that there is no agreement on the
definitions (Wateridge, 1995; Shenhar &
Levy, 1997; Cooke-Davies, 2002; Hyvari,
2006; Basten, Joosten, & Mellis, 2011;
Mishra, Dangayach, & Mittal, 2011). An
additional complicating factor is that
different stakeholder groups may define
success differently for the same projects
(de Wit, 1988; Wateridge, 1988; Shenhar,
Dvir, Levy, & Maltz, 2001; Hadaya,
Cassivi, & Chalabi, 2012).

Among the first to argue that weshould distinguish between project suc-cess and project management success, DeWit (1988) pointed out that the objectivesfor projects are not the same as objectivesfor the project management activities,and may even have a hierarchy of pri-orities. De Wit, along with several authorssince then (see Ika, 2009), have arguedthat we need to distinguish between proj-ect success factors that impact successand project success criteria that are anevaluation of the outcomes of the proj-ect. This raises the interesting question:Are the skills or knowledge needed by ITproject managers based solely on thosefactors that might influence success (tra-ditional project management methodol-ogy), or should they include abilities toengage with the stakeholders evaluatingthe outcomes?

The following sections discuss the
literature and the convergence or inconsistencies in the literature associated
with the skills and abilities needed for
successful project management.

A Review of Project Success Literature

Meeting schedules, budget, and techni-cal performance measures—referred toas “the iron triangle” (de Wit, 1988) or“the triple measures” (Kloppenborg &Opfer, 2002)—are the traditional suc-cess metrics referred to in many stud-ies on project success. Yet, even someof the earliest research dedicated toproject success identified that focusingon more than these three factors wasan absolute necessity, often extendinginto the strategic goals of the project(Baker et al., 1988; de Wit, 1988; Pinto& Slevin, 1988a). For example, de Witargued we should view “time” in mul-tiple dimensions—short, intermediate,and long term—as well as consideringevery phase of the project develop-ment life cycle (exploration, develop-ment, and production). Despite almost30 years of lessons learned, his advicefor post-implementation audits shouldbe heeded “not so much to determineif absolute terms the success or failurebut to identify what went right and whatwent wrong and why (p. 169).”Others have argued that the threefactors of time, cost, and quality relatemore to the project management processthan meeting the stakeholder expectationsassociated with true project outcome suc-cess (Munns & Bjeirmi, 1996; Atkinson,1999; Shenhar & Dvir, 2007). Sinceunderstanding stakeholder perceptionsand expectations is necessary for defin-ing project success, and projects areby definition unique, it makes sensethat there is not a single definition ofproject success or a universal set ofcriteria that one can use to predict proj-ect success or the associated skills thatlead to it.

As shown in Table 2, this debate has
been implicit (if not explicit), in most of
the research on the many potential factors that lead to project success. A weakness of many of these studies is that they
present lists of success factors without
sharing context-specific elements. We
feel this lack of contextual focus is itself
a crucial factor, as noted in several studies (Wateridge, 1995; Belassi & Tukel,
1996; Jugdev & Müller, 2005; Ika, 2009;
Ika, Diallo, & Thuillier, 2011); it is also
worth comparing perspectives on project success from the way they look at
time and the interaction of factors. The
idea of interacting but divergent factors
is reflected in other studies in which the
authors suggest specific criteria but conclude that success means different things
to different people or that it applies to
different groups, as highlighted by the
diversity of factors that reflect on the personal growth of team members versus
their technical performance.

We observed that this subjective
view has evolved, leading to categories
of factors. Echoing parts of de Wit’s
list, Freeman and Beale (1992) took
an investment view of projects, arguing that these project ‘ventures’ should
be evaluated based on seven criteria
needed for project success:

7. A combination of the project product’s ease of use and performance.
Belassi and Tukel (1996) clustered
project success factors based on levels, for example the project, project
manager and team, the organization,
and the external environment.